User talk:Avb/Archive3

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, please bring it up on the active talk page.

Archives 3 July 2006 27 June 2007

hi there - i saw your comments on the deletion discussion for Jimmy Gulzar, and thought they were spot on. I came here because i wanted to ask you about your support for a redirect - presumably to Mel B.

I guess I precipitated the discussion by removing the redirect, and nominating for deletion - i just thought it was silly to type 'Jimmy Gulzar' into the address bar, and end up at Mel B - he is not she!

You mentioned to another editor to consider how they might want their bio. to read - I wonder how JG would feel about a redirect? - I mention this all, of course, from the point of view that deletion is the best thing for now....... thanks - Petesmiles 13:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - I saw that you changed your recommendation from redirect to delete - and having seen your interactions on the delete, and the article pages, i think it's fairly clear that we largely agree - we'll see how this one pans out! - best, Petesmiles 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.110.117.232 vandalized again. See User talk:81.110.117.232. Anthony Appleyard 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to nominate you for administrator but of course went to the wrong page. Anyways, the person was real nice and told me where to go but that first I had to ask you if you want me to nominate you for administrator. So, do you mind if I nominate you? You know policies really well and help a lot of people and I think you would make an excellent administrator but I will abide by your decision. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the big compliment, Crohnie. I gave the idea some thought over the last few days. I (not so humbly) agree there are areas where I've grown sufficiently to become admin material. But there are also areas where I want to be more active and learn for a while (e.g. AfD and Admin noticeboard). This would also build some more history to be used by RfA regulars to help them decide one way or another. Another point would be that the timing may be awkward; I've been overinvolved in the Barrett article for too long, which gives a skewed impression of my Wikipedia activities. An RfA may well lead to a pile-on by certain editors I've met there who (probably honestly) believe I'm a POV warrior of some kind. So I (truly humbly now) think it's too early. Thanks again. Avb^talk 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and hi avb. we've been exchanging comments on Jonathan King. I replied a little on the talk page, and then decided to go through and edit the article with a bit more attention to detail. i may have gone a little crazy, as you'll see .....

Seriously, i respect your contributions, so hope you can help improve the quality of the article, please let me know if i've been an ass, and i look forward to chin wagging over there soon, let me know how you'd call my edits too, that's cool..... Purples 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be the last person to qualify you as a little crazy based on those edits. In short, I like them :-) Avb 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - i wanted to check because i was genuinely surprised to find a can a worms below the lead i'd been playing with.... thanks Purples 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I've been reverting Purples constant reversions.

Your initial points seemed absolutely fair to me but suddenly it's turned into crazy "this isn't referenced" minute detail (example - Gina G was not a smash - I was in England when it went to number one and America when it went into the top 3! Surely that's a smash if anyone wanted to bother spending hours checking it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Germing (talk • contribs).

I think we agree about POV material such as "children" where 14/15-yo is meant. As to Purples' recent edits - sourcing such material may not be enough to keep it. I really think Purples is doing a good job pruning the article back to more encyclopedic proportions. We simply can't list everything King has done (positive or negative). Avb 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. It's far drier now and much less interesting. I liked the original. Stories like the Smurfs one and Genesis info and his TV ratings and all that. Anyway what the hell am I doing supporting a pervert? Let Purples get on with his/her agenda. If it means that much to him/her to work on it all day and night! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Germing (talk • contribs).